With this in mind, how is it, exactly, that when it came time for Palin's first interview on CNN, the "best political team on television" gave the gig to someone who isn't even part of CNN's "best political team on television"?

Evidently, Griffin is one who has agreed to "show deference" to Her Majesty (easily accomplished when you don't know shit).

No one can seriously doubt that CNN would allow the GOP to dictate any terms it wanted for CNN to get a Palin sit down. CNN, like most of the media outlets, are starved for any angle to this election that will draw in viewers. Predictably, they've all been trying on the McCain comeback meme for size, but its not taking too well given the polls. So, no doubt, CNN would do whatever it takes to get this interview. I wouldn't be surprised if the campaign pre-approved the questions.

All the plumbers in the house, pull you pants up!

All the plumbers in the house, pull your pants up!
All the Palins in the house, pull your fluff up!

She'd run screaming from Letterman or Jon Stewart as if her hair was on fire. Pretty fricking lame when A-list comics ask the most hard hitting, discomfitting questions of our political figures.

They don't have to allow them to "dictate" terms, as much as say, "If you let her come on, we'll let Joe Deference do the interview."

If I were a member of the "best political team on television," I'd be a little offended that this glorified fluffer got the interview. I might even say something about it on air.

"I trust the network would disclose something like that."

There's your problem right there, Steve. Trusting CNN.

I have a feeling like this is about two weeks too late. The McCain ran out the clock on Palin, which in one regard is good news for them (no more opportunities for her to say she reads "all" newspapers), but more importantly, it's terrible news for them because she can no longer charm people into voting for the ticket. SNL was a bit like shark jumping.

Palin is finished with moving voters one way or the other. Which is BAD news for the guy trailing all over the place and bleeding everywhere.

CNN should not allow this--there are plenty enough qualified political interviewers with CNN they could have offered up as choices. Drew Griffin is so clearly not one one of them.

CNN is trying to re-invent itself as much as Palin is. What the hell do they care, anyway? It's all about ratings.
**********************
I won't be tuning in. You can tell me about it later. I really can't stomach anything anymore aside from the likes of Olbermann, Maddow, Jon Stewart and fantastic essays and blogs like yours, Steve Benen.

...Because giving the interview to Glenn Beck would be too obvious?

Well Glenn Beck moved to Fox, so they had to find the next best choice.

Surprised it wasn't Lou Dobbs and they can spend the whole fifteen minutes gushing on how they'll stop the immigrants from stealing all our jobs.

OOOH OOOH shiny object! shiny object! We'll get some ratings out of this. Nails on the blackboard to me. Someone please watch for me so I don't have to.

Griffin's 'reporting' lately has been particularly tool-like and this is his reward. It's a sad shame for a once-proud network.

If I were a member of the "best political team on television," I'd be a little offended that this glorified fluffer got the interview. I might even say something about it on air. Posted by: doubtful

As usual, you beat me too it. If I were Campbell Brown, Gloria Borger, Candy Crowley, Anderson Cooper etc I would be abso-freaking-lutely livid about this. What's the point in branding a "best political team" and then giving the higest profile interview to someone not even on it? That's gotta hurt.

Boy, Steve, are you naive.

You'd actually trust CNN to reveal that? I'm sure it, like other TV and TV/Net news networks, treats campaign news as entertainment.

Griffin to Fox News within 9 mos.

If they still had their testicles intact, they'd give the job to Campbell Brown. But she was soooo mean to Tucker The Fucker, so that's out.

The real answer is likely to be not that the McCain-Palin handlers asked for someone in particular, but that they declined various suggested journalists until CNN put forward an acceptable name. I wonder far down that list Griffin was?

Steve Benen wrote: "Griffin has also taken a leading role in reporting on the manufactured ACORN 'issue,' often with disappointing results."

First, Griffin didn't "take a leading role" in "reporting" about anything.

He -- and Lou Dobbs and the rest of CNN's overpaid, fawning, sycophantic, obsequious courtiers to right-wing corporate power who play "journalists" on TV -- engaged in deliberate, calculated, RNC-scripted fraud against ACORN, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign.

Second, to be "disappointed" requires that you expected better to begin with.

I don't expect anything else from CNN or the rest of the corporate-owned media than what they've been doing for years: advancing the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of their ultra-rich owners by working in close cooperation with the Republican party and the overtly partisan right-wing extremist media to propagandize on behalf of Republican candidates and character-assassinate Democratic candidates.

Hmmmmm. A quick search of Drew Griffin turns up several CNN stories:

1. 4 stories on ACORN (attacking ACORN)
2. 1 story accusing FBI of inconsistencies in the R-FL Mark Foley page scandal.
3. 1 story investigating Obama's "ruthless" chicago start in politics.

and a media matters story that accused Griffin of misrepresenting John Kerry's statement while reporting Bush's distorted attack.

Sounds like the McCain team did a better job of vetting a CNN "reporter" than they did Palin herself.

Biggst mistake Ted ever made was loseing CNN and THE Braves

How is it, exactly, that when it came time for Palin's first interview on CNN, the "best political team on television" gave the gig to someone who isn't even part of CNN's "best political team on television"?
================

Those zany Professional Journalists™! Whatever will they think of next?

Time for another blogger ethics panel?

Boy, Steve, are you naive.

You'd actually trust CNN to reveal that?

Boy, Gadfly, are you consistently deaf to sarcasm.

I have a feeling like this is about two weeks too late...Palin is finished with moving voters one way or the other. Which is BAD news for the guy trailing all over the place and bleeding everywhere.

Just so, neilt. Too little too late.

None of the people mentioned, including Campbell, wants to lose their jobs, so won't say anything. I'd love to be wrong, but have yet to be proven so. As long as the "real" news is ignored and/or spun beyond recognition, CNN/FOX, et al will continue to play to our ignorance and reap the financial and power rewards. When we become desperate enough and have nothing to lose, then there will be revolution. Until then, more of the same.
peace,
st john

If the McCain/Palin campaign dictated to CNN who the interviewer had to be, I trust the network would disclose something like that.

Fat chance -- that'd be to disclose that they submitted to the demand, which no reputable news organization should do.

John McCain has promised $1.44 BILLION in corporate tax cuts to the handful of giant corporations that own and control virtually all of America's mass media -- plus millions more in personal tax cuts for their ultra-rich CEOs, plus continuation of the Cheney-Bush policies of radically deregulating media ownership so those corporations can gobble up America's last remaining independent TV and radio stations and networks.

In the last two weeks of the campaign, McCain is counting on bringing out his "base" -- and that base isn't the neo-brownshirt dittoheads who drool over Sarah Palin, it is America's corporate-owned media that McCain is depending on to "turn it around" for him.

CNN's "rehabilitation" of Palin with Drew Griffin's scripted pseudo-interview is part of that effort, as is CNN's scurrilous and libelous attack on ACORN.

And with billions of dollars at stake, the giant media corporations will certainly come through for Their Man McCain.

Anyone who is "disappointed" by this predictable development is either very naive or too young to remember the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

How "wide-ranging" can a 15-minute interview be? Especioally if allowing for thoughtful answers.

Don't forget his NewsBusters-approved, Stanley Kurtz-quoting "exposé" on Obama's relationship with Ayers.

Shortstop, boy are you tone-deaf to Benen's post.

I'm not the only poster here who took his last comment as being straight up. See, for example, "tom of the plains" above my initial comment.

Of course, that's not the first time you've been wrong in misfired sniping at me, for whatever reason. Either get the burr out of your a** or play with it in your private corner.

I'm not the only poster here who took his last comment as being straight up

Nope. But you're the only one who falls for this stuff about every other day. Calling someone else "tone deaf" is a deliciously ironic touch.

Don't worry. We're laughing with, not at, you. Read that as straight up.

Palin's interview with Drew Griffin is very similar to the one with Hannity: no challenges, just an infomercial. He asked her questions but there was little follow-up to her answers, asking for clarification, delving into issues a little more deeply. I changed the show after a few minutes of watching the exchange, expecting this to take place on Fox, not CNN. It is unfortunate that CNN would permit this uninformative interview to be held on their network, as it cheapens their brand.